Pentagon: What happened on 9/11

[yanaar]

Well, the Holocaust thing, actually is irrelevant IMO. He might not be one, and if he was the Holocaust and 9/11 are different things. But that mutiny thing is total BS IMO. Am I really supposed to believe that the high ups that lied about what happened on 9/11 are ready to mutiny? They testified before the 9/11 commission. And lied. And the 9/11 commission then helped them out by letting them get away with their lies totally and created a brand new one for them. And they were fine with it. Am I supposed to believe that Richard Myers is an undercover agent for 9/11 truth? That is so fukin preposterous....but do you have a better term for someone who according to De grande talks with him about how 9/11 was an inside job. Myers then kisses Rumsfelds ass and the rest and goes along with everything. I'm not buying that R Myers is really an undercover agent for 9/11 truth. I think Grande tends to exaggerate.

Gotta take you on again jmid... there could be mutinous factions, and that not everyone is one the same page.  You have to admit that this could be true.   

[jimd3100]

Gotta take you on again jmid... there could be mutinous factions, and that not everyone is one the same page.  You have to admit that this could be true.   

Uh, I will never ever admit that R Myers is an undercover agent for 9/11 truth. In fact, I will say that is fukin stupid

[yanaar]

Uh, I will never ever admit that R Myers is an undercover agent for 9/11 truth. In fact, I will say that is fukin stupid

That's not what I said.  I said... word for word... there could be mutinous factors... you have to admit that this could be true... and how would any of us know?  I said nothing about R Myers, and offer no opinion on him. 

[jimd3100]

That's not what I said.  I said... word for word... there could be mutinous factors... you have to admit that this could be true... and how would any of us know?  I said nothing about R Myers, and offer no opinion on him. 

What does "mutinous factors" mean? People in the military that don't like Bush? Yea, I will admit that since I was one. Some people in the military didn't like Clinton either so what? Or am I supposed to admit that it could be true that high ups in the Military are ready to take out Bush and Cheney? I will admit that as soon as I see some evidence of it.

[yanaar]

What does "mutinous factors" mean? People in the military that don't like Bush? Yea, I will admit that since I was one. Some people in the military didn't like Clinton either so what? Or am I supposed to admit that it could be true that high ups in the Military are ready to take out Bush and Cheney? I will admit that as soon as I see some evidence of it.

OK.  One step forward in getting you out of your very closed mind on this subject.  There could be mutinous factors, and some of them could be among the Pentagon elite.  My guess though is that they (if they exist) they'd be made up of career military who take their oath seriously, and have no intention of being dissolved into a UN military.  

[jimd3100]

OK.  One step forward in getting you out of your very closed mind on this subject.  There could be mutinous factors, and some of them could be among the Pentagon elite.  My guess though is that they (if they exist) they'd be made up of career military who take their oath seriously, and have no intention of being dissolved into a UN military.  

Actually having a closed mind is when my "guesses" are as good as facts. Having an open mind is looking for evidence in any direction.

[yanaar]

Actually having a closed mind is when my "guesses" are as good as facts. Having an open mind is looking for evidence in any direction.

Good point.

[markshark4]

Interesting post from ATS








































Incredible. I've spent hundreds of hours reading about 9/11, and yet this is the first time I've seen photos from this angle.


What really gets me is that if any debris made it through that cross-section of the building, then why is there no damage on the structure running perpendicular to the rings? It clearly would have intersected that wall, yet I see no damage. But somehow something popped out on the other side...


This makes no sense at all.


Where is all the wreckage that MUST exist for such a large plane crash? Not in a single photo I have ever seen does there appear to be anything more than a few small scraps.


Where is all the camera footage?


How could such a large plane get that low to the ground with the phenomenon known as "ground effect"?


If the plane hit so low on the facade of the building, where are the trenches that must have been dug by the engines under the wings?


Why does it seem like there are intact windows where the wings would have hit?


Why was no defense system tracking this plane, monitoring it all the way in to the most heavily defended and highly restricted airspace in the world?


How could there not be any automatic anti aircraft missile batteries near the pentagon which would identify unfriendly targets?


Why has there been no effort made to reconstruct the aircraft by the NTSB like they do with ALL other airline crashes?


Why did bush resist an investigation of the event for over 400 days?


How did the government come to its conclusions of who is to blame BEFORE an investigation was made?


Why was the US and British military already in position for an attack on Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11 happened?


I could ask questions forever. But the point is that there is simply so much guilty demeanor and empty holes in the government story, that for me it simply cannot be coincidence.


This was a plan by hijackers alright. Hijackers of our own government.

[Hetware]

OK. So let me get this straight. A passenger jet flies toward the pentagon and just as it reaches the pentagon a bomb goes off and the plane while looking like it hit the pentagon actually flies over it. And the light poles are planted in order to make people think the plane came from somewhere else. Uh...what is the point? The only reason to plant lightpoles would be to make it look like it came from another direction. Why? There is no point.

[yanaar]

Just like there is no point to your posts... troll dung.

[Hetware]

9

You sure act like a member of Jenny's Knitting Circle.

[Hetware]

You can find my opinion on this in other threads.

[cloudsifter]

"other" IMO, meaning to me it could have been lots of things.  If everyone comes to a consensus on it was this 757 or that missle, then the govt comes out with a tape showing that it wasn't what we all thought, and wham... big blow to the truther movement in my opinion.

Me, I could see it being any of those.  I'd just like to see conclusive evidence in the form of a few dozen of the video tapes that the govt says they have. Not just an airplane flying an approach toward the pentagon on tape, but actual approach, then impact and a few seconds after at the minimum. No one has come forward with any of the evidence much more than a few airplane parts of 'some' kind of aircraft.

I worked a 20 year career in the military, directly on fighters F-111, F-16, F-15, F-117, Cargos- C-130 and Helos-H-53's.  I'm not saying there was or wasn't an airplane hit the Pentagon, and how, but so far I haven't seen anything from the Pentagon pictures that convinces me that a 757 jetliner hit it with passengers on board.

I've walked around in a few military crashes after the fact, and witness a few in real-time and though they weren't at 400mph or whatever, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that jet fuel didn't vaporize most of the airplane, along with the people, luggage, and seats and most everything else but a few engine parts and a few pieces of sheet metal- that's a crock.

Same goes for the crash in Pa. If that plane hit the ground at hundreds of miles per hour, the fuel would have vaporized and most of it would have burned pretty quick. Pretty much nothing left that looks like an airplane, anyway...
landing gear, titanium engine parts would have survived in some sort of shape, luggage, body parts..papers, all kinds of stuff would have come out of it- just doesn't add up.

[Hetware]

Watch the last of these videos to get an idea of what happens to a plane when it hits a solid obstacle at 500 mph.
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/911-planes-were-electronically.html

AA77 is said to have been moving at about 540 mph when it hit.  Most of a plane is hollow, with a light weight aluminum skin.  When it hit the 1/4 inch steel in the columns of the WTC, it sliced the steel because of the momentum.  When the same thing happened at the Pentagon, the plane gave, and the concrete stood.  The Parts with the most mass penetrated the facade, but the wings and vertical stabilizer folded, and/or shattered.

I agree that there is a dearth of evidence regarding what actually happened.  There is a risk in staking too much of a claim on any one scenario because, as you rightly pointed out, if people are firmly invested in one, and the facts are revealed to show that to be wrong, it could embarrass the movement as a whole. 

[Protean]

Question:      What hit the Pentagon
A 757 piloted by Hani Hanjur    - 0 (0%)
A 757 under automated guidance    - 1 (33.3%)
A military drone painted up like an AA plane    - 0 (0%)
A cruise missile    - 0 (0%)
Nothing.  It was a bomb    - 0 (0%)
other - Please explain    - 2 (66.7%)
   
Total Voters: 3

I voted other because I believe two of the above are involved.

My "opinion"-- Part One: a missile took out the the Pentagon wall; destroying the records of the missing 3 trillion dollars for Rummy's convenience and was a demolition for that part of the building which was about to go through reconstruction, so insurance would have to pay for the reconstruction and not the Pentagon budget (Larry S. may have coached them on that one)--two birds with one stone/missile.

My "opinion"-- Part Two: a 757 did a low flyover on the Pentagon seconds before the missile hit the wall. The bystanders having their attention diverted would see the plane, then hear/see an explosion. Again, the reason for a missile is precision, a large plane would be too messy and unpredictable as to the damage inflicted, but it's a hell of a diversion trick.

[Hetware]

The area around the Pentagon is one of the densest traffic tangles on the planet.  There are drivers on roads, pedestrians, bicyclists, boaters, joggers, pilots, Metro trains, etc. all around there.  The tower at Reagan National has a view of where the alleged flyover plane would have flown.  There are also several high rise buildings with a view of the location. There is simply no way that such a thing could have happened without notice.  This was a beautiful day.  An exceptional number of people would have been outside at the time. 

Not only do you have to convince me that a flyover could have happened without anybody noticing.  You have to convince me that the perpetrators believed they could get away with it.  Then you have to explain where that flyover plane went after it left the area.  Then you have to explain why they would have done such a thing when a 757 would have produced exactly the damage we see in the face of the Pentagon.  Then you have to account for AA77.

[jimd3100]

"other" IMO, meaning to me it could have been lots of things.  If everyone comes to a consensus on it was this 757 or that missle, then the govt comes out with a tape showing that it wasn't what we all thought, and wham... big blow to the truther movement in my opinion.

You really think the gov. would ever produce a video showing anything other than a passenger Jet hitting the pentagon? No they wouldn't. For two reasons.
1. That's what hit the pentagon
2. The Gov is not going to produce a video debunking themselves.

[jimd3100]

Go talk to a "no Planer" ask them their opinion on the pentagon. For all you folks that don't think a plane slammed into the pentagon, guess what? The "no planers" agree with you.

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

On Tuesday, Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams witnessed a combat zone for the first time in his 11 years of service. He never imagined it would be inside the Pentagon. One of the first recovery personnel to enter the crippled headquarters building after a hijacked Boeing 757 smashed into it, the urban search-and-rescue specialist found a gruesome sight. "If anyone has ever burned a pot roast, they'll know what the victims looked like," Williams, 30, said Thursday after another 12-hour shift of searching for 190 bodies — those of 126 missing Pentagon personnel and the 64 aboard the doomed jetliner.

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."
from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

There is his name, rank, and location. Track him down and tell him he is full of s**t.

[Hetware]

Go talk to a "no Planer" ask them their opinion on the pentagon. For all you folks that don't think a plane slammed into the pentagon, guess what? The "no planers" agree with you. How do you think the stupid "no plane" theory originated?

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/11/originator-of-plane-hit-pentagon.html

To be fair, Alex has questioned whether a plane hit the Pentagon.

[jimd3100]

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/11/originator-of-plane-hit-pentagon.html

To be fair, Alex has questioned whether a plane hit the Pentagon.

Yea, I have too. But not anymore. When I saw LC when it first came out, it seemed that a plane couldn't have done it. So I researched it further, and found some major errors in the movie, and evidence that the plane did hit. No evidence that a missile did. If all the info you go on is edited clips and "truth" movies you will be deceived just as you would if you believe everything on TV. Maybe you've noticed the change in what LC presents as to what happened at the pentagon? And AJ has never promoted the invisible missile.

[Hetware]

I'm forking this from another thread.

Flight 93 Crater was made by nature and was there in 1994 and this video proves it. Flight 93 never did crash in my opinion and a plane did not hit the pentagon as there was no wreckage or debris. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s

There was wreckage and debris at the Pentagon.  People claim the downed light poles, the damage taxi cab, the multiple eye witnesses and the debris were all planted.  IOW, they have to discredit all of the existing evidence in order to support "theories" that have little or no evidence, and make little or no sense.

As for UAL 93.  I am almost certain it was shot down.  I really don't know what happened between Shanksville and Lambertsville, but something clearly blasted the hell out of the tree-line.  My speculation has been that it was hit at altitude and crippled.  There was still sufficient maneuverability to guide it to a predetermined "ditch" point where a waiting A-10 vaporized it with some kind of extremely powerful warhead.

It all fits into a relatively simple and coherent model.  There were four planes hijacked.  Three of them were intended to hit the WTC, and the fourth to hit the Pentagon.  Flight 93 was delayed on takeoff so long that the perpetrators lost the window of opportunity, and could not longer hold off the legitimate air defenses.

Not that UAL 93 went down just after Air Force One took off.  There is some reason to believe that Bush was not expected to be around by that time.

[Hetware]

Yea, I have too. But not anymore. When I saw LC when it first came out, it seemed that a plane couldn't have done it. So I researched it further, and found some major errors in the movie, and evidence that the plane did hit. No evidence that a missile did. If all the info you go on is edited clips and "truth" movies you will be deceived just as you would if you believe everything on TV. Maybe you've noticed the change in what LC presents as to what happened at the pentagon?

It may be arrogant of me, but to some extent, I credit myself for that.  I certainly spent a lot of time on their forum discussing it matter.

[Hetware]

@jimd300

You really have to realise that NO PLANE STRUCK THE PENTAGON, it was not a remote controlled flight 77 nor was it a remote controlled military cargo plane of a similar size.

These types of planes DO  NOT MAKE 12 FOOT HOLES IN THE SIDE OF A BUILDING

where ever the hijacked plane ended up, it never got near the Pentagon and certainly did not crash into it.

How big of a hole do you expect a 12 foot cylinder to make in a concrete wall?

[Biggs]

large planes do not make 12 foot holes in buildings - really it is that simple, I do not know exactly how they fooled/tricked/duped the eyewitnesses but I am quite sure they did.

I realise yourself and jimd3100 strongly disagree with myself and most others here on this matter, however, no amount of smearing is going to change my mind.

and why do you bring up a point I made on this thread a full 6 months ago? Seems like a kind of odd thing to do.

[smokecheck]

Question:      What hit the Pentagon
A 757 piloted by Hani Hanjur    - 0 (0%)
A 757 under automated guidance    - 1 (33.3%)
A military drone painted up like an AA plane    - 0 (0%)
A cruise missile    - 0 (0%)
Nothing.  It was a bomb    - 0 (0%)
other - Please explain    - 2 (66.7%)
   
Total Voters: 3

I voted other because I believe two of the above are involved.



My "opinion"-- Part One: a missile took out the the Pentagon wall; destroying the records of the missing 3 trillion dollars for Rummy's convenience and was a demolition for that part of the building which was about to go through reconstruction, so insurance would have to pay for the reconstruction and not the Pentagon budget (Larry S. may have coached them on that one)--two birds with one stone/missile.

My "opinion"-- Part Two: a 757 did a low flyover on the Pentagon seconds before the missile hit the wall. The bystanders having their attention diverted would see the plane, then hear/see an explosion. Again, the reason for a missile is precision, a large plane would be too messy and unpredictable as to the damage inflicted, but it's a hell of a diversion trick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

[Hetware]

large planes do not make 12 foot holes in buildings - really it is that simple, I do not know exactly how they fooled/tricked/duped the eyewitnesses but I am quite sure they did.

I realise yourself and jimd3100 strongly disagree with myself and most others here on this matter, however, no amount of smearing is going to change my mind.

and why do you bring up a point I made on this thread a full 6 months ago? Seems like a kind of odd thing to do.

I didn't look at the date of the post.

Regarding the hole in the Pentagon, it is exactly what I would expect after giving the matter careful consideration.  It is also the opinion of an engineer I know who spends his days playing with rocket booster engines.  But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.  A long cylinder of aluminum impacting a barrier on a trajectory parallel to the central axis will punch a hole approximately the diameter of the cylinder.  The wings folded back, and the engines were like beer cans with steel shafts in the middle.  The cowling gave way and the shafts left very small holes.  Once you stop and really think about where the mass (and momentum) of the plane was located, the damage pattern becomes understandable.

[smokecheck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugriWSmRxcM&feature=related

 The first link is an awareness test and the second is an audio illusion.

[jimd3100]

Looks like the first floor to me. Just because an old "truth" movie says 16 foot hole or 12 foot hole or whatever ..doesn't make it true.

Wonder what happened to Flt 77? No need to wonder...it took out the first floor of the pentagon, proving how remote control was used on these planes.
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

But I'm supposed to think the perps are so stupid they would risk shooting a missile over a heavily populated area and no one would notice? No thank you.
And dump flt 77 into the ocean so it would be possible for someone to find this gigantic piece of evidence at some point in time, or remote controlling it and blowing it up? instead of remote controlling  it into the first floor of the pentagon like all the witnesses said, and like the wtc planes? I'm going to believe that? No thank you.

[Biggs]

    

Looks like the first floor to me. Just because an old "truth" movie says 16 foot hole or 12 foot hole or whatever ..doesn't make it true.

actually I have seen really quite a carefully and scientifically done assessment of the hole size and indeed between 12 by 16 and 16 by 16 was the concluded hole size, using known size of windows nearby, known floor height and so on to create a scale factor enabling a decent estimate of hole size to be made.

[jimd3100]

   
actually I have seen really quite a carefully and scientifically done assessment of the hole size and indeed between 12 by 16 and 16 by 16 was the concluded hole size, using known size of windows nearby, known floor height and so on to create a scale factor enabling a decent estimate of hole size to be made.

Yea, there was a hole, there was also the first floor being taken out, as the pictures show. There is also a passenger Jet missing and witnesses who saw it fly into the pentagon. What a coincidence!

[Biggs]

there is also a passenger jet missing at Shanksville, and anyway stop diverting the subject just because you made an inaccurate point regarding the size of the hole.

[Hetware]

The diameter of a cruise missile is too small to have created the damage to the front from impact alone.  If a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, then, in order for the hole in the front of the building to have been created, its warhead would have to have detonated on impact.   If that happened, then what made the hole in the back?  What knocked down the light poles?  What damaged the taxi cab?  What did the witnesses see?  Where did the aircraft wreckage come from?  Where did the missing airplane go?

[n0b0dy]

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

Why would the passengers be strapped into their seats?

How did the passenger remains survive but not the engines?

[Biggs]

The diameter of a cruise missile is too small to have created the damage to the front from impact alone.  If a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, then, in order for the hole in the front of the building to have been created, its warhead would have to have detonated on impact.   If that happened, then what made the hole in the back?  What knocked down the light poles?  What damaged the taxi cab?  What did the witnesses see?  Where did the aircraft wreckage come from?  Where did the missing airplane go?

all worthwhile questions.

however, a cruise missile, especially a DU tipped one, is capable of making a 12 by 16 foot hole, an allegory to this would be bullet holes in people's walls, they are generally a few multiples the diameter of the actual bullet.

the hole at the back caused by the penetrator warhead of the missile plus debris, remember a very major contributor to damage from missiles that the pentagon scientists factor in is the kinetic energy of the missile and missile parts, so much so that all planned future weapons systems will operate without explosive warhead and purely utilise kinetic energy of impact as being the destructive force of the weapons system. The Navy's planned rail gun is a classic example.

What did the witnesses see? now that is a tougher question, there is the flyover theory, holograms, diversions, I simply do not know, but the flyover theory fits the bills best and explains the plane seen north of the gas station. the proximity to the airport explains why this plane would not be noticed flying away as it would look the same in altitude and direction as any other plane taking off from reagan airport. However, there is not as much evidence as I would like so I do not spend my time promoting this.

As for witnesses, clearly some were tricked/fooled/duped - that is the very definition of a psyops deception event - which 9-11 undoubtedly was. One or two may be plants and 'in on it', however, for the most part they were duped in some way IMHO.

There are too many ways to fool witnesses, there are too many ways to threaten witnesses, there are too many ways to bribe witnesses, there are too many ways to have MK Ultra victims strategically placed as witnesses.

do not forget that 68 witnesses to JFK's assassination were murdered, falling down stairs, strange car crashes, suicides and so on. Indeed so much so that for a decade or more there have only been two witnesses who could provide any details of what happened still alive, and both of them have lived in fear and have kept quiet, changing testimonies etc.

What is more most people know about all these JFK witnesses being bumped off, so there is plenty of reason to believe that eyewitnesses who saw something other than the official story would feel they had every incentive to keep quite and stay alive.

Eyewitnesses and people who are 'in the game' are always the first to be bumped off and everyone with knowledge knows this.

As for the taxi driver, I do not know for sure - nobody does, he fits the typical profile of an Mk Ultra victim , especially given the remarkable fact that the plane at pentagon people's most improtant witnesses just happened (my shock) to have a copy of David Icke's reptillian book on his front seat.

Now that is remarkable,  what are the odds? say at most Icke sold 30,000 copies of that book in the USA (likely an overestimate), that makes the odds 1 in 1000 - quite a coincidence.

Also if he reads Icke books he is the kind of person who is well aware that the government will kill him if he provides evidence contrary to what he has been told (or programmed) to say.

Whether he is a scared guy who keeps his mouth shut in order to live a long life, or a victim of the evil MK Ultra program, either way there is plenty of reason to see why he might lie.

There is also plenty of ways he could have been duped in some way by a flyover - that gives three plausible explanations as to why his testimony could be in doubt - none of which makes him culpable or a traitor - just another victim of the filth who perpetrated 9-11.

I do not spend too much time promoting any of this as there is little to be gained, anyway looking at the poll most people on this board seem to believe it was a missile or drone that hit the pentagon - in fact only yourself and jimd so far believe that flight 77 hit the building - but I admit it is a small cross section so far.

However, you pushed me on the point so I gave you my opinion on the matter. I do not have all the answers but from a physics point of view the plane hitting the pentagon theory simply does not sufficiently explain what occurred.


And as nearly every no plane at pentagon/flyover/cruise missiles person on this very long thread has pointed out - if a plane did hit why not just release footage of it doing so - 60 - 70 cameras with a view of the incident as a minimum - they loved showing us WTC attacks for days after - why no images at all of the impact or even the plane's approach at the pentagon.

it just does not add up if flight 77 hit as they say it did.

[Biggs]

Why would the passengers be strapped into their seats?

How did the passenger remains survive but not the engines?

good points, even more so how did the seats themselves remain intact when basically no parts of the plane were able to do so? it is certainly another piece of the puzzle.

[n0b0dy]

Was Williams the only person to see the remains?

What about emergency crew who were dealing with the fire. At least one of them must of seen some of these passengers who were still strapped to their seats. After all this time why has none come forward and let us know what they saw?

There must of been several people involved in sorting through body parts and identifying victims. I have not heard of any that have come forward and confirmed what they witnessed. Why is only Williams saying what he says he saw, have all the others who worked with him been gagged?

[shirteesdotnet]

I dont see why Iran or someone else doesnt try to reproduce some of these crashes. Dubai with all of their money could recreate the twin towers and then fly some remote controlled planes into them and see what happens. God, that would be beautiful to showcase on live television that the people running our government are total frauds.

[jimd3100]

there is also a passenger jet missing at Shanksville, and anyway stop diverting the subject just because you made an inaccurate point regarding the size of the hole.

Missing plane at shanksville? Spoken like the no planer that you are. And I'm the one being accurate, not you. Pretending we have a hole when we have damage on the entire bottom floor.
Planes flew into buildings you and the rest of the no planers might want to face reality

[jimd3100]

Why would the passengers be strapped into their seats?

Because they are on a plane

How did the passenger remains survive but not the engines?

Because you believe things that are told to you.
Ok everyone. I'm going to show you physical evidence of the non existant engine from a passenger Jet. Now you show me some evidence of a misssile? No can do? Didn't think so.
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/wr-eng.html

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

[Biggs]

Missing plane at shanksville? Spoken like the no planer that you are. And I'm the one being accurate, not you. Pretending we have a hole when we have damage on the entire bottom floor.
Planes flew into buildings you and the rest of the no planers might want to face reality

smears smears, I am not a no planer, nor is anybody else, just because they come to the conclusion that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon. And I am not incorrect about the hole although of course there was damage outside the area of the small hole, but then there was a large explosion so one would expect to see damage. Explosions cause damage whether jet fuel, pure kinetic energy, missile or bombs - or any mix of these - they all cause damage.

as for Shanksville, care to show me the plane??? was it in the garbage hole they dug - nope, so where was it? hence 1 missing plane at Shanksville, presumably because it was (a) shot down and disintegrated in mid-air or (b) never there.

I tend towards (a) but do not discount (b) as it is still a possibility. (however, this is not really the thread for Shanksville).